What is going on here is not a pedantic mismatch between English and some esoteric academic exercise. Rather, there are ambiguities in the English use of "If... then...", "...or..." and various other terms that we must settle in order to examine the structure of our utterances in detail. — Banno
↪NotAristotle
Is it worth pointing out, again, that "P→~P" is not a contradiction? If P→~P is true, then P is false.
If that's been said once, it's been said a thousand times... which is not once. — Banno
there are ambiguities in the English use of "If... then...", "...or..." and various other terms that we must settle in order to examine the structure of our utterances in detail. — Banno
We might correct them, "well, actually ~Q." "Your reasoning is spot on and logical, it just happens to be that ~P, so while your reasoning is valid, the argument you presented is unsound." — NotAristotle
"I disagree with regards to ordinary language" I'm not quite getting it, what is the disagreement you have concerning ordinary language? You think someone would make an inference from A->not-A to therefore not-A in ordinary language? — NotAristotle
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.